The former  hawkish "WMD" czar in the Obama Administration and advisor in the Clinton Administration, was initially a skeptic in the ability to reach an agreement, but found his concerns to be satisfactorily answered, saying "I think President Obama's strategy succeeded ."   "....if Iran cheats or reneges we will be in an even better position to double down on sanctions or, if necessary, use military force."  

If anything people should be more interested in the sender than the receiver, no ?

To qualify, I have always stated that this was a huge mistake.  Everyone argued it wasn't illegal and that so and so did it and blah, blah.

But just because there is nothing wrong with it, doesn't equate to not being a mistake.  I would like to know why.  I don't think it's for any of the conspiracy non-sense, but it's like me deciding to have my department use .tax instead of the normal email system.  It doesn't make sense, and it's creating problems.

That being said, if it wasn't email it would be some other ticky/tack BS that HRC did wrong.

Funny how republican have completely forgotten about the White House doing the same thing with the added bonus that they 'lost' all their email communications.  And if memory serves me correctly, they used public domains to discuss____.  We don't know because all of it was 'lost'.

The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act. Over 5 million emails may have been lost or deleted. Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove lost emails, leading to damaging allegations. In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been deleted.

And on that I see your point I guess.

My eldest daughter is our resident tech guru, having graduated with a B.S. in IT. And, I might add, out of the 27 SUNY-Albany undergrads who received degrees in that particular field that year, she was the only female.

She's wicked smart about this stuff, and my partner and I have actually contracted her as our firm's tech consultant, which she does on the side in addition to her full-time job in the IT Dept. at Bank of Hawaii.

Also, thank you for the reassurance about Windows 10.

Just another embellishment.

The State Department does not send top secret information via its .gov email.  They use cables...

The Obama administration has further voiced its suspicions that Chinese hackers breached security at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management to access private information and records of about 4 million federal employees, although China has since strongly denied these allegations.

While I'll assume that you were likely confused and mistakenly conflated the two incidents, I would nevertheless strongly note that they were entirely separate from one another.

Secondly, those four particular e-mails in question were classified retrospectively by the Intelligence Community Inspector General (IC IG), long after Mrs. Clinton had already turned over her 55,000 work-related e-mails from the Clinton Foundation's server to the State Dept. and had relinquished her post to John Kerry.

Further, although the IC IG insists that all four e-mails contained classified information, the State Department has taken rather vigorous exception to that particular opinion, having determined during its own prior review that they needn't have been classified.

In other words, we're talking about a turf battle between two federal agencies over each other's retroactive review of Mrs. Clinton's 55,000 e-mails, and not about a breach of national security. Through not fault of her own, Mrs. Clinton happens to be caught in the middle of it.

Since you weren't around at the time, I'll just note for your benefit that TalkLeft contributor Armando Llorens, aka "Big Tent Democrat," has already discussed this issue in rather lengthy detail, in two separate posts at TL on July 24 and 25. They can be found HERE and HERE, respectively.

I would strongly urge you to read both of them, because right now you're insinuating wrongdoing on Mrs. Clinton's part without offering any evidence at all to that effect, and you are seriously misinformed regarding the actual timeline of events per the classification of those e-mails.

I filed two suits in federal court back in '03.

One of them was against the proper party and the federal courts seem to have an obligation to waive service under some circumstances . . .

One of them was against the chief of police who had been misapplying the IE law to a particular situation.  The mere fact of the publicity of the case exposed what was happening not right and the purpose of the suit was accomplished by the publicity and public discussion resulting . . .

in '14 I sued two entities, the state and the city . . . or rather, I sued the AG and the City Attorney . . . I almost had the suit tossed due to failure to serve in the manner prescribed by law . . . but within the 90 days expected, additional facts came to light that substantially strengthened my claim to the point that the suit as such as no longer necessary--merely informing the defendants of the additional facts was overwhelming and accomplished the purpose of the suit.

back in '03 one of the suits was against the state to have a law declared unconstitutional . . . a lawyer who had recently won a similar case in a different state said/recommended I sue the county DA and those in privity with him . . . and at least as far as the federal court was concerned, that was just fine . . .

At least some of you should like the idea of an occasional suit against a city or county or state for unconstitutional laws . . . and in 1st amendment or other similar-amendment violations . . .  you folks, or some of you, speaking of lawyers and helpers who post short pages on the web of how-to, seem to not have put up much on the subject of suing a state, city or county for unconstitutional laws . . .

I suppose I could ask it this way . . .

Does anyone know where I could read the first complaint filed out in Florida in erznoznik v. jacksonville a number of years ago?  Not the final SCoTUS decision, but the initial complaint filed at the local or district court level . . .

Though I realize there is some service and I can pay $10 or 20 or whatever and read a bunch of federal court filings to my hearts content . . .

I don't care what the Demos or the Repubs think about a national insurance market. I especially don't care what a blog thinks when it claims that it is impossible to have a national market. What nonsense. It is like they have never heard of computers.

Let's look at some of their nonsense.

"Here's why. For an insurer to succeed in any given market, it has to have a sizable base of enrollees. And insurers know you can't just wish that into being. The selling-coverage-across-state-lines idea runs into a chicken-and-egg dilemma."

Every major insurance company has in place right now agents in all the states. All they have to do is start basing their rates on a national basis rather than a county basis. And since they have the county/zip code basis all they have to do is....are you ready for this???....ADD them up.

Now, will their success be guaranteed? No. But that's what a free market is about. These people, and you, want a small market controlled by small groups within each state. Those that fail on the national basis will be replaced by others.

And you want local watch dogs??? Well, again. WE ALREADY HAVE THEM IN EACH STATE.THEY'RE INSURANCE COMMISSIONS. PART OF THEIR JOB IS TO PROTECT THE CONSUMER. THEY CAN RIDE HERD ON THE COMPANIES AND WORK WITH THE FEDS.

So please, quit playing gotcha games by quoting ridiculous articles that can be refuted by an old man in 10 minutes when it is way past his bed time.

I  just finished carrying my laptop into my office from home for 3 minutes to send the 7 emails I had composed for work at home. Whoosh, the Wifi at work scooped them up and sent them out--the whole backed up que was sent in seconds.

But I have Cox as my ISP at home, unlike work, which has super duper ISP.

But I can use the Cox Webmail from home--but those emails show it was sent from my goofy Webmail address rather than my fancy, smancy work .com address.

*

Well, that sentence will be enough--I think--to give me victory in my complaint if I ever get it filed . . . or to force the city to revise its statute or "authoritatively construe" it in a limiting fashion.

Much of the classified information in the e-mail conversations originated with the CIA, according to two government officials familiar with the records. Some of the information was deemed to be classified by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency's classification guidelines. The information included references to information related to satellite images and electronic communications, according to the officials.

The findings by McCullough stemmed from his office's review of a sample of 40 of Clinton's ­e-mails. Previously, he had said that the sample included four classified e-mails, but on Tuesday he adjusted his assessment -- saying that intelligence agencies deemed two of those e-mails to have contained top-secret information.

McCullough has asked for access to all of the e-mails to conduct a more thorough review but was denied by State Department officials in July.

Last week, State Department spokesman John Kirby said that while the agency was working to "resolve whether, in fact, this material is actually classified, we are taking steps to ensure the information is protected and stored appropriately."

McCullough also located two e-mails that included classified material from among a separate batch of 296 related to the 2012 attacks on U.S. outposts in Benghazi. One of those e-mails had been publicly released by the State Department, causing consternation within the intelligence community.

He has also located one additional e-mail in the sample of 40 that was classified at the time it was sent but has since been declassified, suggesting that there is no longer a reason to protect the information or that it has since become public, two people familiar with the finding said.

McCullough also told lawmakers that his reviewers found two e-mails they believe contain information that the State Department considers classified, and they have alerted the agency so it can conduct its own review.

All told, McCullough has pointed to seven e-mails that he said contained classified information, including two with top-secret material.

Off topic, but I watched a Russell Brand special on Netflix about legalizing drugs.  To say it's odd to see British police conducting drug raids without guns, would be a huge understatement.  They are in nearly the same storm trooper gear as US, kicking down doors, but no guns.